Just Posted: Nikon D3200 preview samples gallery

Bluff comment. Get a decent monitor.

May 25, 2012permalink

TPeterson

How would this compare to my old D40? I'm getting everything I can from that camera, but I'm starting to be limited now for prints and books.

Should I be considering this next b/c of price or to upgrade to something like the D7000, D300s, or their replacements?

May 1, 2012permalink

T.P. My first Nikon DSLR was a D40 and I'm currently using a D7000. Yes, D40 is a great little camera, but D300s and D7000 are in completely different category providing you totally new experience and possibilities.

Regarding the features, the D300s and the D7000 are very similar. They both have AF motor in the body and they can also meter old manual focus Nikkor Ai lenses as well. The advantage of a D300s is the full Magnesium Alloy body (in D7000 only partially) and a CompactFlash card slot. But what is the big advantage of the D7000 over the D300s is the newer generation low noise 16MP sensor (vs. 12MP). Personally, I would warmly recommend upgrading to a D7000. Of course, you can wait for their replacements, but once you start waiting you may continue waiting for the next replacements and so on...

May 1, 2012permalink

TPeterson

thanks for the advise.

May 1, 2012permalink

Craig Gillette

This is certainly a more capable camera than the D40 when it comes to things like usable iso range, resolution - for larger prints, etc. It has an improved finder and rear display, etc. The D7000 and D300s are going to have even more expanded feature sets, the replacements, when they come (no one's telling when yet), will likely use this sensor.

Do you need a faster or more rugged camera? Any interest in video? shoot indoors or need weather resistance? Either the D7000 or the D300s would be a substantial step up in many ways (short of overall resolution/pixel count).

May 2, 2012*permalink

No comparison at all. D3200 is much, much better than D40 - it's a state of the art 2012 camera.

May 25, 2012permalink

ibrahimbeno

The D40 was great in the past (2001), so at less Nikon D3200 is new, have more MP 24.2 and a large sensor, it's #1 best seller camera at Nikon, make much of it's users happy, simple to use, small body and the list can be so long.
i think it will be great upgrade for you, because of it low price, like this you can invest in more lenses and tripod ...
this article will help you so much for take a good purchase decision because it's contain info about why you need go with D3XXX series or D5XXX series or D7XXX series.
http://nikond3200news.blogspot.com/2014/06/nikon-d3200-is-it-best-dslr-camera-for-beginner.html

Jun 30, 2014permalink

(unknown member)

A blurry mess. Why would anyone want to buy that?

May 1, 2012permalink

intruder61

such an informed, intelligent reply......Not.

May 3, 2012permalink

(unknown member)

"'such an informed, intelligent reply......Not."

What more did you expect? The fact that the samples are all soft and blurry is obvious.

May 3, 2012permalink

Rubenski

DPR staff: please let me know when the comparison - and in depth reviews - between the 5D Mark III and the D800 is coming. I'm really looking forward to it.

Apr 30, 2012permalink

Cultured Woman

Dude, it's red... even if its a really great camera... it looks like a toy...

Everyone likes to play, n'est pas?

;)

Apr 30, 2012permalink

Dude, who would ever buy a red or yellow Ferrari or Lamborghini? Even if they are really great cars...they look like toys!

Seriously, though, you have to remember that red is only an *option*. You have the choice of red or black. Red is probably for people who are a little more adventurous and less narrow-minded. Nothing wrong with offering consumers a bit of choice...especially in a sea of black DSLRs.

Apr 30, 2012*permalink

There's nothing wrong in giving a red option for those who prefer something other than black..

Apr 30, 2012permalink

CedricL1984

Haha still better than magenta!

May 1, 2012permalink

Aputra

How about cyan?

May 1, 2012permalink

I wish these super high megapixel cameras would also advertise what their average file size is going to be (RAW and JPEG). They should add that to the specs page so that consumers understand at least one of the ramifications of shooting with a camera that has so many megapixels. It's pretty pointless to have such high resolutions, and have such large file sizes, when the average buyer is probably never going to be printing these images very large anyway. They certainly aren't going to be printing at billboard sizes.

Apr 30, 2012*permalink

So true. High megapixel is good for large prints for sure. But many people are never going to print any picture. I see rich girls buying a D3200 and posting pictures of their friends on facebook.

They could get the same results with a D40.

Apr 30, 2012permalink

jimr

Isn't it wonderful to know how reasonably priced memory of all kinds is today!
Just compare to what it cost a few short years ago when the 6 MP D40 was the entry level Nikon DSLR...
Now we can have the option to use 24MP sensors because we have such reasonably priced memory cards and hard drives.

May 1, 2012permalink

Marco - yes. I assume you mean a D3100. The D40 is not on the market any more. Of course the rich girls can get just as good images with a D3100. But they are rich. So why not get D3200? I dont see the point. BTW - I am not a Nikon guy - isnt there more differences between D3100 and D3200 than the MP count?

May 1, 2012permalink

thejohnnerparty

I totally agree. If they do upgrades on the D300s or the D7000, I hope they don't go overboard on the sensor density. 16MP is enough for a DX sensor. Just my thought on that subject.

May 1, 2012permalink

Sam Carriere

It's hard to take any camera that comes in a bright red version seriously. It's either a camera or a fashion accessory.

Apr 30, 2012permalink

Why can't it be both? We live in a different world now. A camera no longer has to look like a tank or some other piece of military equipment. The reality is that there are some people who want their cameras to be a camera *and* to be "fashionable." Just take a look at Leica owners who put snake skin or lizard skin leathers on their Leica M bodies.

We also have to remember that practically any DSLR sold today, no matter what color it is, offers a level of performance that would knock the socks off of a lot of high end pro bodies from the past.

Apr 30, 2012permalink

justmeMN

I red DSLR says "leave me alone, I'm not a Serious Photographer." (grin) Back when I had a black film-SLR, it seems that every passerby was compelled to come over and talk to me. Eww. So much for Quite Time.

Apr 30, 2012permalink

Colour should not have any connection/association with the quality of the tool.

In the past all quality cars were black.
Does it mean that all black cars are of high quality now?

I believe we need to accept that having an option to choose the color of the camera wil only make consumers more satified and camera producers more profitable.

Who cares that the camera does not have a "pro" body colour when it can take "pro" quality pictures?

Apr 30, 2012*permalink

Nismo350Z

They could offer camouflage for wildlife shooters. Heck, even I would buy one since it would look really cool, like military gear.

Apr 30, 2012permalink

Sam Carriere

You're quite right, T3. The bias is entirely my own. :)

Apr 30, 2012*permalink

wepwawet

I personally don't buy cameras to 'look serious' but it seems lots of people here do (most of which I suspect aren't even pros).

Apr 30, 2012permalink

Michele Kappa

I have an Oly E-PL1 that is red. Looks pretty sweet. If I bought a Nikon I'd probably choose this red one, for the same reason.
But then again I understand the "pro looks" and their necessity of blackness. We would have "Men in Pink" instead of Black if it wasn't like this ;) Nonetheless, remember we deal with an entry level DSLR. So why not play with its colors? :)

Apr 30, 2012*permalink

jimr

It is hard to take anyone's comment seriously when the color options are their way of judging the capabilities of any camera.
The word superficial comes to mind.

May 1, 2012permalink

waxwaine

Still not better than Pentax K-r(1 1/2 years old)

Apr 30, 2012permalink

Who cares about Pentax when reading about Nikon?

Apr 30, 2012permalink

mmcfine

People should be aware that they are better alternatives to this product such as the Pentax K r. Having a 24 MP behemoth should not be a consideration factor these days.

May 1, 2012permalink

justmeMN

In Amateur Photographer Magazine, a Nikon representative said: "Megapixels is a spec point that features whenever you look at a website, a brochure it's always highlighted....For that [entry-level] customer it will be important, but higher up enthusiast-level D7000 customers, for example, have a much broader range of demands on their list to tick off, such as performance in low light, or being more robust."

In short, 24MP is just a marketing gimmick aimed at entry-level buyers.

Apr 29, 2012permalink

Kananga

Well if it works and Nikon sell more cameras then they will have more revenue for R&D to develop better technology for enthusiasts. Let them have their 24MP, it isn't hurting anyone.

Apr 29, 2012permalink

rudymnv

Well, yes and no. Typical consumer mind will choose box with higher number for same amount of money, from marketing standpoint this is good thing. Needing faster and higher capacity memory cards, faster in-camera processors and computers... from industry standpoint this is good thing. Moore's law on its best, and it will continue to develop in future to some really ridiculous Mpix numbers. But from consumer standpoint, there is lack of awareness regarding most important part of any camera, its lens. While shooting with high quality optics (usualy very pricey, several times the price of D3200), having high Mpix count has its benefit even on APS-C sensors, shooting with kit-lens and expecting miraculous IQ is just lack of awareness. Marketing gimmick or technology evolution... answer is in mind (or lens) of beholder.

Apr 29, 2012*permalink

seta666

Well; I was first to say high megapixel count was not good but seeing the IQ of the sony NEX 7 I have to say I am very impressed. By looking at RAW crops seems that Nex 7 sensors has been improved in this camera.

Apr 29, 2012permalink

lancespring

"In short, 24MP is just a marketing gimmick aimed at entry-level buyers."

Not true, as the Sony A77 is most definitely not aimed at entry level buyers.

Apr 29, 2012permalink

@Kananga

Look at Apple. As they discovered they make much more money with the consumer market, they're abandoning the professional one. And that's bad.

Higher entry level sellings = more founds to invest in innovation for professional and prosumer is not always right.

Apr 29, 2012permalink

marike6

For DSLRs, 24 mp simply means higher resolution. It has zero to do with marketing. These are not lousy P&Ss for which manufacturers continue to up the megapixels often at the expense of IQ.

The D800 at 36 mp has more than any other DSLR, it also has great low-light performance, and awesome IQ.

Apr 29, 2012permalink

zodiacfml

You know what....if it sells to beginners and new comers then it's good for everybody. If we still remember, DSLR's were pretty expensive back then. Today, a mainstream but affordable 600D or Nikon D5100 works so well. Enthusiasts are also buying into full frame cameras which makes them more affordable. Some Nikon rumors says that Nikon is going to produce a full frame cheaper than the D800.

The photography industry is fast becoming the electronics/computer industry.

Apr 30, 2012permalink

Yes,
BUT who will use all 24 MP at mainstream level
when 90-95% of future D3200 users will never print a picture bigger than 11X14 ????????????

Apr 30, 2012*permalink

jimr

I'll take that 'gimmick' and it's added capability anytime ...
$699.
A steal of a deal....

May 1, 2012permalink

@Dimitri - so you say most will not need 24 MP. They would make just as good images e.g. at 12 MP or maybe even less. OK - that might be true. But - tell me what advantages you see for mainstream photographers to have less pixels?

May 1, 2012permalink

By the kind of questions I read here, I think is clear that Nikon is giving new entry photographers something they don't need or understand. But makes them THINK they need it, that makes profit for Nikon itself.

Don't really think this brings any good to the market nor the buyers.

Many people had trouble deciding between entry level cameras with a "regular" mpx count, now they get so confused some people actually consider buying the D3200 instead of the D5100. Pretty crazy IMO.

Apr 29, 2012permalink

tampadave

And the entry photographer will get more in the future. When possible, 50-60mp is coming.
http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/photo-news/538521/nikon-d3200-bows-to-megapixel-mania-update2

Apr 29, 2012permalink

Yes,
BUT who will use all 24 MP at mainstream level, let alone 50-60MP,
when 90-95% of future D3200 users will never print a picture bigger than 11X14 ????????????

Apr 30, 2012permalink

dawn2dusk

Hello, for long i hve been planning to buy d5100, but after this came out there is a chaos in my mind. D5100 is great except it doesnt have inbuilt focus motor in it, so as this camera.(I m much into photography than video so dont care much whether manual contrl is there or not). But what really took my attention about this camera is that i can crop the photo n can get little closer to the subject without the need of large zoom lens(need ur opion if i m right on this). Also i want to know if i take a picture with high iso with both the cameras and then later i bring the size of the d3200 image down to the size of d5100 will i be able to get the same picture quality(with similar amount of noise). I m really confused i think the price of d3200 and d5100 is around same and i dont want 2 spend more than tat. And if d5200 comes out it would definitely be more expensive. So i want to stick with these two. Please give ur opinions which one would be a better deal. Planning 2 buy soon.Help!!

Apr 29, 2012permalink

Well, I say stick with D5100. it's 16mox so you can still crop a good amount of the picture. Plus, cropping doesn't make up for the lack of a good telephoto lens, keep that in mind. I'd go with the D5100 just because it's less entry level, that is something real, instead of bull**** about picture quality, megapixels and other minor differences between the sensor of the two models.

Apr 29, 2012permalink

rudymnv

I would go with D5100. While cropping can be useful for web/onscreen view, as you get more experience with framing and composition, you'll come to point where you don't want to crop at all. So IQ wise, cropping is not good, it's not replacement for telephoto lens, and it's something you don't want to do on regular basis. Like stated in comment above D5100 is more serious photographer tool. And if you can somehow save a little more for D7000 that would be a real win.

Apr 29, 2012permalink

Then4

D5100 is a good camera and good build one. If i wher a first time buyer of a DLSR only want it for good photos. It have lovely colours.I'm dont think D3200 will have the same build quality. Recent Nikon cheap cameras have really droped in feel quality thinking of P510.

Apr 29, 2012permalink

Hey dawn2dusk, don't get confused because of 24MP. Decision should be a no-brainer, go for a better and (most likely) snappier—D5100. And scaling down to reduce noise is pretty lame—especially in cases when you have to crop—something Canon guys have been touting for long to compete with D3/D700/D3s:s high ISO performance.

Apr 29, 2012permalink

lancespring

Lots of bad advice here, that is totally ignoring the new advances in the D3200. For one, it has the same new EXPEED 3 image processor that the D800 and D4 have. That is really going to result in great looking photos, as this preview's samples clearly demonstrate.

The D3200 has lots of great video features too. It shoots 1080 in 24p, 25p, and 30p, and 720 in 60p. Allows for full manual exposure control when shooting video, has on screen audio recording meters to monitor audio, and there is no ISO limitation on recording video either.

So don't discount the fact the the D3200 has some features and new technology which the D5100 simply does not have.

Apr 29, 2012permalink

1) EXPEED3? Does that make good pictures? I thought PHOTOGRAPHER made the picture...maybe the camera if you want....but now the processor? Oh boy, we're going really down.

2) D5100 shoots video too, D3200 is just a minor improvement in that field if any noticeable. And most of all: video? C'mon please.

dawn2dusk, listen to people who actually take pictures like me or the others above, get a D5100.

And I'm no professional shooter, but my D3000 is still enough for me, I invested in some VERY good lenses. THOSE make the difference together with your talent. Not 60p vs 50p or 8mpx more.

Apr 29, 2012permalink

One more thing, dawn2dusk, remember that D3200's LCD is fixed whereas the D5100 has a 3" Vari-angle 921K-dot LCD (which is very nice when shooting high or low).

Apr 29, 2012permalink

dawn2dusk

Thanx people for all ur comments...now i have a stable mind !!! Dont know why i was falling towards this camera...nice marketing strategy by the way to lure the novice users.

Apr 30, 2012permalink

Wubslin

I see Nikon's PR department have been busy today. Anyone who isn't fooled by their shiny toys is a 'Canon troll' apparently. Got it.

Apr 29, 2012permalink

rfsIII

I could definitely see going out street shooting two of these, one with a 20 mm 2.8 and one with the new 85 1.8. They 're cheap enough I could afford to buy more lenses.

Apr 29, 2012permalink

Valiant Thor

Hello, I am an amateur and have a question for the more experienced here. The D3200 lists 3 Image Size MP Modes: 24.1, 13.5, and 6.0. What would the image quality result be shooting at the lower MP Modes such as 13.5 or even the 6.0 MP? Is the camera still making full use of the entire sensor? If one were not intending to make large prints, how would shooting at the lower MP size settings affect the resulting images? Then there's the issue of the Image quality settings which are JPEG basic, JPEG normal, JPEG fine, NEF (RAW) and NEF (RAW) + JPEG fine. If one were to shoot at say the 13.5 MP or 6.0 MP Image size and JPEG fine, I assume that would result in a pretty HQ image output and an easy to handle file size. Any thoughts on these different settings and options would be most welcome. Thanks!

Apr 29, 2012*permalink

Every time, despite what setting you choose (raw, jpeg, fine, small etc), the camera shoots raw. The quality setting tells the camera a. to keep or to discard the raw file (raw quality settings) and b. how to process the raw file (picture controls, jpeg options). So every output comes from 24 mp raw. To ensure maximum quality you need to keep and process the raw file with a raw converter outside of the camera (in your computer) but many people are happy with OOC jpegs and I can understand why. A downsized OOC jpeg is what most potential buyers of this camera want. Choose the least jpeg compression (jpeg fine) and experiment with the various mp settings to find the optimal balance between file size, quality and SD-card/hard-disk storage.

Apr 29, 2012*permalink

mmcfine

Poor consumers who will buy this or any mega pixel camera without considering the post production or loading and editing these huge files.

Apr 29, 2012permalink

There is always the option to output reduced down to 6mp jpeg files. Unless the average consumer always shoot and process raw :).

Apr 29, 2012permalink

tompabes2

I think nowadays computers have enough power and disk space to handle a 24mp file without great problems...

Apr 29, 2012permalink

nilux

The poor consumer will be shooting 24MP JPEG which is a lot easier to handle thamn 24MP RAW.

Apr 29, 2012permalink

ARTASHES

Average consumer will say :
Check out man I have a 24mp camera !!!!

Apr 29, 2012*permalink

mmcfine

exactly my point ARTASHES !
TOMPABES2: yes nowadays computers have enough power but the average consumer doesn't buy those computer, most of my non-pro friends who have mega pixel cameras use Picasa, Windows on some cheap crap Dell laptop.

Most average consumers buy 24 MP cameras and never read the instructions, have no basic idea of photography or intentions to learn.
Most average consumers use these mega pixel DSLR as a P&P.

More average consumer DLSR sales = reduced prices on hi-end stuff for us...-)

Apr 30, 2012permalink

Wubslin

Another failure from the desperate Nikon. No great surprise...

Apr 29, 2012permalink

marbo uk

Someone else living in a parallel universe.

Apr 29, 2012permalink

Canon troll.

Apr 29, 2012permalink

Pathetic post...

Apr 29, 2012permalink

gl2k

The WiFi adapter alone is a very cool selling argument. AFAIK no other vendor makes it so easy to get the pics where the average consumer wants them. No high class prints, no post processing ... just fun on my Android or iPad device.

Very clever Nikon.

Apr 29, 2012permalink

fmian

Cameras with built in wifi have been around for several years.

Apr 29, 2012permalink

iBuzz

Maybe you don't understand the real value of this new WIFI adapter: this Wi-Fi setup give you a Wireless Live View on your phone screen and add many possibilities to share your pictures on social network!

Apr 29, 2012permalink

Revenant

The recently announced Samsung mirrorless cameras offer WiFi features too, including automatic back-up and remote live view. And without the need for an adapter, I might add.

Apr 29, 2012permalink

SBoudreault

"The recently announced Samsung mirrorless cameras offer WiFi features too, including automatic back-up and remote live view. And without the need for an adapter, I might add."

But it's a Samsung...They make good TV's, decent phones, but cameras ? Maybe decent... Good glass, oops not much there !
S.

Apr 30, 2012permalink

Revenant

I wasn't really suggesting that Samsung makes better cameras than Nikon. I was just pointing out, in response to the OP, that Nikon isn't the only manufacturer offering these features.

May 1, 2012permalink

There is one thing many high MP haters overlook and that is the ability to get "zooming capability" for free, because you can crop more and still maintain the image size of your older low MP camera :-)

Apr 29, 2012permalink

More pixels leads generally to better IQ. There are three advantages with few pixels:

1. You get better images at extremely high ISO.
2. You get a faster camera.
3. You save memory/disc space.

But, as APS-C has a rather large area, you can have many more than 24 MP before running in to IQ problems, except for extremely high ISO, and then you have IQ problems with any camera, just less with big pixel cameras.

Apr 29, 2012permalink

Hrvoje Crvelin

It is not that simple. High MP requires investment into higher quality glass too to take advantage of such sensor. This is what kept me away from nex7. At such point d3200 becomes too expensive entry level camera. With dSLR one is truth; you find your lenses first and then body. My wish is to have camera like d300, but at lower price range... I might wait couple of year for that... until then, I bought d5100 yesterday which to me (and for what I do) is better choice than d3200.

Apr 29, 2012permalink

No - higher MP count does not demand better glass. It will improve any glass.

Apr 29, 2012permalink

I have all the Nikon pro lenses, but still think the 18-55 is doing pretty well. You get a lot of value for very, very little money. Great for holidays if you don't want to bring a pro lens that is heavy and cost 10-20 times as much.

Apr 29, 2012permalink

More pixels will not lead to the better images at extremely high ISO.

Hi-ISO IQ depends on the sensor signal/noise specs and not MP count!!!

Apr 30, 2012permalink

@Dimitri - you are right - up to a point ISO wise. But - at a certain point, the noise added by each detector adds up to a substantial ratio of the image information. Then you can get less bad images with fewer and larger detectors. But with modern APS-C sensor size technology, for 24 MP that happens at very high ISO.

Apr 30, 2012permalink

@Dimitr - yes you are right. At extremely high ISO, more pixels will not improve image quality. It might even do the opposite. But, thats not all that important for most people. Because at very high ISO, all cameras have cr@ppy image quality. The competition who has the cra@ppies is not all that interesting IMHO.

Oops - sorry for replying twice. But now I have said it :) Twice

May 1, 2012*permalink

djmm

Hello
Can I take rabbit pictures with this camera? I know it can probably take cat pictures but how about rabbit?
Rabbit is a whole different ball game compared to cats.

Apr 29, 2012permalink

Revenant

I don't think the camera manufacturers do any rabbit tests. It's not considered appropriate for a photographer to have any other pets than cats.

Apr 29, 2012permalink

Mousehound

As a Nikon preferer and (I also use Canon) user I am sure that this model will sell in bucket-loads. This level of user will always go for the high pixel count. Sadly the Canon is clearly the winner in actual clarity of pictures.

Apr 29, 2012permalink

Sergey Borachev

I am sure it will sell a lot. Bigger is better, you know, for a lot of smart consumers ;)

24MP is better than 23MP or 18MP. A car with 8 cylinders in a car must be better than 6 or 4. A bigger DSLR must be better than a small MILC. A 50-inch TV must be better than a 46-inch one, for sure.

Such is the intelligence of so many consumers, or should I say the majority of consumers! They either learn by heart some brands' names, like Nike or Nikon, etc, or they can only remember one measurement for a product. For cars, it is the displacement of number of cylinders, for TVs it is the size in inches, for cameras, it is the number of MPs. The masses will still flock to this camera and other such beginner DSLRs from Canon for a while, as the average person buying cameras have, er, average intelligence. That's by definition. :)

Apr 29, 2012*permalink

@Sergey - I say it once more in this thread - and then no more. In general the IQ increases with pixel count. Its a myth that this is not the case.

The biggest advantage with few pixels is speed - if you are in a hurry - either to take 11 images per second or if you have to send your images fast to the sport news.

A smaller advantage is the you get less cr@ppy images at extreme ISO. But - thats really only for a very few people. Getting cr@ppy images instead of even cra@ppier is not all that interesting for most of us.

Apr 29, 2012permalink

Sergey Borachev

@Roland - I will only say this once more, just for you. The point I made is about needing many things for a good camera, not just high ISO. Large number of cylinders and displacement in a car also guarantees means more raw power, but can you control that power if the suspension and steering are not up to it? Can the power translate to speed, if the tyres are not up to it, or the car skids and slides? Similarly, high MP alone is not enough. You need to get the picture first, meaning good AF, accurate exposure etc etc. The highest MP is no use if it is too dark, too blurry due to erroneous AF. You get it now?

Read my post again, if not. It is about how this camera will sell based on the 24MP, and although IQ is important it is not the only measurement that is important. I was not talking about higher MP not a good thing.

Apr 29, 2012*permalink

@Sergey - the comparison with the car only holds if 24 MP in any way is a relevant problem. The problems I can see is speed and file size. Do you find any of those relevant for you?

NOTE - file size you can fix. There are lower resolutions. Speed on the other hand you cant. Do you think you need/want more than 4 FPS?

May 1, 2012permalink

Pixel Judge

Glad I paid a little more for the 16MP Oly OM-D w/ kit lens, which is about half the size and weight of this $699 Nikon.

Apr 28, 2012permalink

iBuzz

Glad I didn't paid twice the price of Nikon D3200 for low megapixel Oly OM-D w/kit lens with slow AF for cats and dogs running and not so good RAW files.

Apr 29, 2012permalink

oselimg

I think the IQ( don't mean the image quality) of this forum has to improve.

Apr 28, 2012permalink

senn_b

for sure ! .. :-))

Apr 29, 2012permalink

Tee1up

I have to wonder why people are comparing the Canon 7D ($1400), Pentax K5 ($1060), Sony NEX7 ($1199) and Nikon D3200 ($620). Giving the edge to these much more expensive cameras at very high ISO seems like a crazy argument when in fact the real issue should be, how can a $620 Nikon compare so favourably with those cameras. Like many, I am waiting for the in-depth review but from what I have seen so far, there is a lot of camera here for the price.

Note: these prices are all Canadian $, body only, my local area.

Apr 28, 2012permalink

ARTASHES

550D/600D gets 7D sensor, D700 had D3's sensor, D5000 has D300s sensor, today in fact the lowest class Nikon APS-C camera beats the highest class one the D300s in therms of IQ (it's old I know but still), today the IQ or the sensor performance isn't the main factor of camera's class but focusing, speed, built quality, performance are, so comparing the IQ of diff-class cameras isn't shocking to me.

Apr 28, 2012*permalink

s1Lma

WTF? Why is the exposure so high compared to other cameras???

btw, hard to judge noise in the shots made

Apr 28, 2012*permalink

Very nice RAW performance, up with the Sony, actually a lityle better at 6400 and 12800. Well-done Nikon. If this is not a Sony sensor, as it's seems to be, interesting tech coming from Nikon and whatever maker involved.

Apr 28, 2012permalink

derfla1949

This camera is priced as a consumer level product.
So you should expect just what you pay for.
Out of camera jpeg at ISO 800 is mediocre, and at 1600 is just horrible, yes, but so what?
People can use a flash on their grandpa's birthday.

As long as there is a pixel count difference with a mobile phone, there is no need to compare IQ.

Apr 28, 2012permalink

D1N0

At least Nikon has improved on the high iso performance of the a-77 Nex-7 which probably use the same sensor. Still not nearly as good as the 16mp in the D7000/K5/D5100.

Apr 28, 2012permalink

MichaelK81

People in this market segment do not care about IQ. Entry level SLRs sell mostly on price and specs. And D3200 will sell like pancakes.

Apr 28, 2012permalink

mario7

Worse noise from 800 ISO up compared to 3100, 5000, 5100 and T3i. Not good.

Apr 28, 2012permalink

injeklitio

look the samples in raw, focus in mickey mouse pants and set the iso 1600, the worse is the d3200, following d3100, cannon 600d and the better the d5100, too much mp for this camara, there is nothig new in the d3200, bad for nikon.

Apr 28, 2012permalink

marike6

And in RAW ISO 1600, look at any grey patch like under the pencils, and you'll see the D3200 has much less chroma noise than the 600D, and smaller, tighter noise pattern.

If you were to normalize all cameras at 14 mp of the D3100, you'd see the difference in ISO performance even more, with the D3200 outperforming the others. Great for Nikon.

Apr 28, 2012permalink

ARTASHES

To much hot pixels in D3200 samples to my taste, that said it may be the key argue for non Sony sensor in D3200, from those pics at least

Apr 28, 2012*permalink

lensberg

@ marike6 - come on... you have got to admit that the high ISO performance of the D3200 is mediocre at best... ISO 1600 and above is practically unusable even by amateur standards...

The Canon 600D is much cleaner in just about every aspect of the DPR sample image... look at the brush... the legibility of characters on the bottles & the Kodak colour chart... the cloth fibre... the blue clock... the womans face... & that patch of tiger skin... everything is rendered with realistic pinpoint accuracy...

And considering this camera is targeted at a segment of the market which will comprise mainly of amateurs... i doubt anyone will bother downsampling to reduce noise patterns & artifacts...

Apr 28, 2012permalink

Then4

Nikon D3200 seems to be the first victim in the MP race. I only produse larger files but in quality Nikon D3100 and Canon 600D outperform it.

Apr 28, 2012permalink

You definitely need glasses or a better monitor :-)

Apr 28, 2012permalink

mario7

Agree.

Apr 28, 2012permalink

Sigh - the too many pixels myth is very difficult to kill. An APS-C is rather plenty of square mm. 24 MP is far from the limit where you start to get problems.

Apr 28, 2012permalink

What is this? The pack of fans from other makers tryong to put down a very good RAW performance? It's better than all in the sample here.

Apr 28, 2012permalink

Then4

RAW peformance is not good. Maybe i had a bad monitor but the pink colour i really get wrong in the samples and to see so much noise in every ISO. I think many hoped that this model would de a poor mans D800. But save your money and get a real D800 is better if you want high MP.

Apr 28, 2012permalink

photo nuts

AnHund, Mario7, Rhlpetrus: fanboys blinded by their fanaticism. It's VERY obvious the D3200 has AWFUL high ISO performance. And let me tell you this: unlike chroma noise, those hot spots in high ISO cannot be removed without compromising image details.

Sure, the D3200 has seemingly better noise performance than the Sony NEX 7, but this was achieved by reduced color sensitivity. Look at how washed out the colors become as ISO levels start to climb.

Apr 28, 2012permalink

Photo nuts. Just stick with your NEX and let us fanboys enjoy the d3200 :-)

Apr 29, 2012permalink

@Then4. Of course D800 is better than D3200 - its twice the sensor area. That has some impact on IQ. But - that has not to do with pixel size - thats sensor size.

So - if you claim that more pixels (on the same size sensor) means lesser IQ - I think its up to you to prove it to be the case. Its my belief that the world in general has the opposite opinion, i.e. that more pixels leads to better images. To a certain limit of course. But that limit is far away for APS-C.

Apr 29, 2012permalink

HopeSpringsEternal

Actually this Nikon may be using an Aptina 24mpx sensor. Afterall, this is a high volume camera for Nikon and I'm sure Nikon would prefer not to enrich Sony with this model and I'm sure that Sony is very unhappy that Nikon is deploying 24mpx at the lowest end cutting of its air supply at the mid-end with the A65/A77

Aptina also developed the sensor with phase detection for Nikon used in the "1"-series cameras.

Apr 28, 2012permalink

justmeMN

Con: No Automatic Exposure Bracketing, just like the D3100. Geez, even my 2003 Canon G5 compact camera has AEB. How backwards of Nikon. AEB is a convenient way to get a perfectly exposed photo under tricky lighting conditions. It's not just about use with HDR software.

Apr 28, 2012permalink

Gesture

My Pentax 33L, same year, has exposure, white balance, contrast and saturation bracketing. I think your Canon G5 also has focus bracketing. I agree, this isn't a difference maker like focus speed, viewfinder size and coverage, AF points, processor power, etc. that should determine price points.

Apr 28, 2012permalink

Simage

Interesting, at first glance is does not look as good as the other cameras, however according to this test the output is similar to the D3X and I don't see many people complaining about the D3X IQ.....:)

Apr 28, 2012permalink

Niucamer

I was going to say that. 90% of D3X IQ for 10x times less, plus video. Amazing, isn't it?

Apr 28, 2012permalink

Emacs23

to all nikon fanboys: the camera uses sony sensor, it's insider information

Apr 28, 2012permalink

KonstantinosK

Gee, I'm sure all the nikon fanboys are weeping after this...

Apr 28, 2012permalink

ianimal

But ain't Nikon making some of the instruments that Sony use in the CMOS sensor production? If so they are for sure sharing much sensor technology between them. I only more or less guess here, no rumors from me ;)

Apr 28, 2012permalink

jimitav

So what?

Apr 28, 2012permalink

Just Ed

That's just fine, Sony does make the best consumer sensors...by far!

Apr 28, 2012permalink

John Koch

If only Sony could report some profits too!

Apr 28, 2012permalink

Not what the technically litterate say ... but it's actually irrelevant, Sony/Nikon partnership is producing the very best sensor tech available at the moment.

Apr 28, 2012permalink

brendon1000

I honestly don't know why Nikon fanbois are complaining about Nikon using Sony sensors. Nikon does tweak the sensor better than what Sony does and at the end of the day most of its newer sensors are better than what Canon has so whether its Sony, Kodak or any other XYZ company making the sensor it shouldn't bother anyone.

At the end of the day its still a Nikon branded camera. :)

Apr 28, 2012permalink

AngryCorgi

And to Leica fanboys (emacs23), Leica uses awful Kodak CCDs...what was your point again?

Apr 29, 2012permalink

Emacs23

@AngryCorgi

I hope leica will use that 36Mp sony sensor in their M10.

Apr 30, 2012permalink

pc168

I'm using D700 and interested to know how far the IQ of that new DX sensor would fall behind the FX. As such, I have downloaded those NEF samples and converted to JPG using Capture NX2 v2.3.2. After checking the result (with limited samples), I have an impression that the D3200's IQ is considerably far away from FX (D700). However, 24MP (DX) vs 12MP (FX) might be a matter of concern.

Apr 28, 2012permalink

http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/dslr/d3200/sample.htm

I tried the same with the ISO 3200 samples and after down sampling the D3200 image and doing a little post processing I was amazed how close the IQ is to the D700 - not as clean and with a little more noise (not annoying), but with details perfectly retained.

Also note that the D700 was shoot with the 85mm 1.8 and the D3200 with the 50mm 1.4. That may give a little difference as well.

Apr 28, 2012permalink

cesaregal

You can see here D3200 jpg samples with 40mm f/2.8G:

Not bad.
I have D700 and 85mm f/1.8.
D3200 + 40/1.8 is cheaper.

Apr 28, 2012permalink

Julian

So now we're in a world where you have to put the best pro-glass on the lowest spec DSLR to get it to perform...

Apr 28, 2012permalink

I don't think so. It's more like this: If you intent to print your pictures at the same size the D3200 with lens will be probably better than D3100 with the same lens and surely better than a D40 with the same lens.
Every lens will benefit from more mp. More mp is the trend because its better. Look at the Nokia 40mp phone. Look at the Nikon 1 with a pixel density of 74mp in FF terms. Do you think that Nikon 1 kit lenses are top grade?

Apr 28, 2012permalink

Rubenski

More MP is better? That's probably why the top models all have....LESS MP. A camera is a whole lot more than just MP, MP is much more just a marketing tool.

Apr 28, 2012permalink

D4 is only 16mp because it has to shoot at 11fps. When the data-rate capability will increase mp count will follow.

Apr 28, 2012permalink

Josh152

Also the higher end models are updated less often so they end up playing catch up to the lower end models features and MP wise.

Apr 28, 2012permalink

marike6

@ Rubenski

The top model, the D800, has more MP, and it gets a ridiculously good High ISO (sports) score of 2835 ISO and 14 EV DR on DxOMark. Marketing, you were saying?

Apr 28, 2012*permalink

Josh152

Cameras like the D4 have less MP because they are for sports/event/PJ shooters who often need to shoot 2000+ images at a time and in the case of sports/pj shooters send them to the wire service while the event is still going on.

Under these circumstances having smaller file sizes is vitally important. Especially considering the images are often being captured at 10+ fps.

The D4 type cameras are actually a very niche, specialist cameras.

Apr 28, 2012permalink

BS, pure and simple. More pixels make your lens, any lens, better than lower pixel count. Learn a bit about how to measure it or how to use it in real life situations.

Apr 28, 2012permalink